It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Do you still support the IRAQ WAR??? Read this!!!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 05:02 AM
link   

* The U.S. death toll is well above 2,700, and the coalition death toll just passed 3,000. Last month 776 U.S. troops were wounded -- the highest number in nearly two years. There is no sign the insurgency is waning, and no evidence to suggest it will any time soon.


In other words, there is no evidence that US is winning the war or that this war is going anywhere other than more bloodshed.


*"In September, we did see a rise in sensational attacks," Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, said October 4. "Last week we also saw the highest number of vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices this year that were both found and cleared, and those that were detonated. The number of IEDs, or improvised explosive devices, is also at an all-time high."


The US soldiers are under constant attack and threat of being killed. When is this going to stop?


*A report published last week in the British medical journal The Lancet suggested the Iraqi death toll due to the war could be in the hundreds of thousands. The White House disputed that figure but provided no figure of its own.


As usual, the White House only disputes reports and figure and tries to discredit them without providing any reports of their own. Bush simply saying that, this number is false and this is true does not make it the truth, so count that out. People still support the war in Iraq. How can anyone support this genocide?


* Gen. George Casey, head of U.S. troops in Iraq, said, "I've not seen a number higher than 50,000," though he said he could not recall where he saw that figure. "It's either from the Iraqi government or from us. But I don't remember it precisely."


Reagrdless of where the number is from. The head of the troops himself is stating it. Im sure he has a better idea about the amount of lives lost.


*
The United Nations has reported a spike in Iraqi deaths this year, saying more than 3,000 Iraqi civilians died each month in July and August alone.


More than 3,000 each month???? Multiply that by 12 and you get 36,000 each year. And its been 3 years roughly so multiply by 3 and you get your estimate. more than 108,000!!! And people still support this war??

keeping all theories aside, even if 9/11 was caused by terrorists, how does that justify killing of 108,000 people????


* The violence in Iraq has "spiraled totally out of control," Jan Egeland, the top U.N. humanitarian official, said last week. He estimated 1.5 million internally displaced people who had to flee their homes amid the violence, and another 1.2 million to 1.5 million Iraqis who fled to neighboring countries.


Why cannot people see that US attack has only caused the destruction of millions of lives. What if you were an Iraqi, whould you be thanking US??? What would you say if you were labelled terrorist for being against US and this war????
Imagine this happening in the US.
Atleast under saddam, Iraq wasn't such a mess and political leaders of Iraq werent fighting with each other for control and power.


* Some universities and hospitals in Baghdad have lost up to 80 percent of their professional staff, Egeland said, and at least a third of Iraqi professionals are estimated to have left their country in recent years.


And Iraqi's should thank the US for liberating them and bringing health and education to their country!!!


* At a news conference last week, Bush noted that attacks rise each year during the month of Ramadan. And he argued the violence can be seen as a sign U.S. efforts are making headway. "Attacks and casualties have also increased recently because our forces are confronting the enemy in Baghdad and in other parts of Iraq," he said.


Ramadan is almost over and there were no big attacks on anyone across the world. Bush is trying to indirectly blame the muslim terrorists by quoting ramadan time. He makes it sound like everyone fighting against US in Iraq is a terrorist when its clear to see that that country is about to fall apart and the people are trying everything in their power to get the US out and claim their country back and bring it back to stability. Yet, people support the Iraq war....i ask you....WHY?????

Link for above article - cnn.com

Also, other recent news which shows that not all US soldiers are in Iraq fighting a goody-goody war.

Four U.S. soldiers charged with rape and murder - cnn.com

The title is pretty self explanatory.

[edit on 19-10-2006 by half_minded]




Mod
Edit: Link format edited. Please review this post.


[edit on 20-10-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]




posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 05:03 AM
link   
P.S. I request the mods to not move this to the political discussion forum because I think this article deserves a reading by everyone and deserves lot more attention.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by half_minded
In other words, there is no evidence that US is winning the war or that this war is going anywhere other than more bloodshed.


Whilst there is no evidence the US (or Coalition rather) is losing either. You could argue it is effectively stalemate. The insurgency cannot continually keep re-supplying itself with AT (Anti-Tank) weaponry for instance when more and more of its personnel are being killed (before you try to use Afghanistan and the Mujahadeen as an example, think of who supplied them, equally with Vietnam, who supplied them?). So unless countries like Iran & Syria (perhaps others?) are supplying these idiots (which brings you to question why and undermines their position and makes them look worse than the Coalition), how will they last? The people will eventually get sick and tired of all this bollocks, because many of them are being killed in Mosques or busy Markets. Do you expect the insurgents or Al Qaeda for that matter to re-build Iraq's infrastructure?! Do they have the expertise or skill to do so? How about co-ordination and organisation? Come on please, you're deluding yourself if you think any hope lies with Insurgents and Al Qaeda.



Originally posted by half_minded
The US soldiers are under constant attack and threat of being killed. When is this going to stop?


When the Insurgents lay down their arms and try and HELP the Coalition and ordinary Iraqis re-build the country. How can blowing up Mosques, cars, market squares help restore anything? Every battle or firefight the Coalition and Insurgents/Al Qaeda fight, who usually comes out on top? Which btw isn't just down to advanced technology and 'gear', but superior training, discipline and support.



Originally posted by half_minded
As usual, the White House only disputes reports and figure and tries to discredit them without providing any reports of their own. Bush simply saying that, this number is false and this is true does not make it the truth, so count that out. People still support the war in Iraq. How can anyone support this genocide?


For some reason the White House has taken the stance of not publishing casualty figures. On the face of it, it seems like they don't want to undermine public support/confidence in the ongoing operations within Iraq. However they also might simply not know. Although how do we know they're not already trying to estimate their own figures?



Originally posted by half_minded
Reagrdless of where the number is from. The head of the troops himself is stating it. Im sure he has a better idea about the amount of lives lost.


Even he is a little ambigious about the figures, stating that he wasn't sure where and from who he got them from.



Originally posted by half_minded
More than 3,000 each month???? Multiply that by 12 and you get 36,000 each year. And its been 3 years roughly so multiply by 3 and you get your estimate. more than 108,000!!! And people still support this war??


Conflicts nor life for that matter follow a 'mathematical projection'. You can't assume just because so and so deaths happened in these many months, and of the whole year, yet try and predict the EXACT same thing will happen or be multiplied next year. Obviously this is a bad year and things have gotten worse, however we do not know how things will pan out for the future. Look at the Troubles iin Northern Ireland, the peak of activity was the 70's, and to some degree the 80's, that went on for too long. Yet who came out better? Certainly not the IRA.



Originally posted by half_minded
keeping all theories aside, even if 9/11 was caused by terrorists, how does that justify killing of 108,000 people????


But you equally make it out that there is a deliberate policy by Coalition forces to indiscriminantely kill civilians. Come off it, who at least uses smart munitions, which at least aims to be as precise as possible whilst avoiding civilian deaths....

[edit on 19/10/06 by Flyboy211]



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 06:48 AM
link   
....Insurgents and the like don't care, they'll detonate bombs purposely to maim and kill civilians, and 'point and shoot' wherever there's a moving target. They don't value the lives of civilians, indeed any life. You cannot leave a country to the mercy of such an unstable and volatile element.



Originally posted by half_minded
Why cannot people see that US attack has only caused the destruction of millions of lives. What if you were an Iraqi, whould you be thanking US??? What would you say if you were labelled terrorist for being against US and this war????
Imagine this happening in the US.
Atleast under saddam, Iraq wasn't such a mess and political leaders of Iraq werent fighting with each other for control and power.


Whilst the original motives for invading are subject to investigation and seem questionable, we cannot dwell on that any further, it serves no purpose other than to avoid dealing with the issues at hand, which is to re-build Iraq and leave it in a condition in which it can fend for itself. Why do you think the Coalition is still there? They're trying to re-build infrastructure, provide electricity, clean water, basic sanitation and these idiots who apparently are 'fighting for freedom' are constantly sabotaging these efforts. If i was Iraqi (depending on where i got my information and whether it is diluted and free from bias/restriction) then i would be angry everytime an Iraqi died by Coalition hands, or another part of the country is destroyed. However...i'd be more angry at the Insurgents and Al Qaeda or whoever else is helping them. Since they do not care for the Iraqi civilian by blowing up bombs in market squares, and especially in such holy places like the Mosques. They show no effort of trying to re-build Iraq and frankly don't have the capability or means to do so.

Lol you certainly have ignored history, rather conveniently. How do you think Saddam kept the excitable elements of Iraqi society quiet? He brutally subjugated Iraqis, gassed the Kurds, no one was ever allowed to speak out against him without facing serious consequences. Much of the country was suffering (UN sanctions did not help - however don't solely blame the US/UK), what was he doing? Building palaces of gold and erecting statues of himself; a self serving despotic ruler who was more infatuated with himself and saw himself as some sort of God, didn't exactly care about the plight of the common Iraqi.



Originally posted by half_minded
And Iraqi's should thank the US for liberating them and bringing health and education to their country!!!


At least they're trying to bring democracy to the people, so that they can hopefully eventually decide how to govern themselves and how their education/healthy system will be run.



Originally posted by half_minded
Ramadan is almost over and there were no big attacks on anyone across the world. Bush is trying to indirectly blame the muslim terrorists by quoting ramadan time. He makes it sound like everyone fighting against US in Iraq is a terrorist when its clear to see that that country is about to fall apart and the people are trying everything in their power to get the US out and claim their country back and bring it back to stability. Yet, people support the Iraq war....i ask you....WHY?????


No attacks? I kind of doubt that. They've bombed Mosques before on holy occasions, i doubt they'd take a heartfelt reprieve, more like take advantage of it. Well i can't see how else you're going to label Insurgents/Al Qaeda when they're killing their own people? So every single Iraqi civilian is fighting to get rid of the Coalition are they? Tell me this, how will opposing warring tribes and individuals like Insurgents agree on anything if the Coalition left? You think they'd magically come together and suddenly peace would reign over Iraq, lol that's absurd and bordering on psychotic naiveness. Explain to me, if you will, how would the Insurgents and other extreme elements contribute to re-building Iraq? What they're suddenly experts in architecture, maintenance, plumbing, technicians etc? Do they have a plan on how to re-build Iraq? If you leave these psychotic individuals to roam around Iraq unchecked, then you're only signing the country's death sentence, and despite what the civilians have suffered they deserve to be free from, death, harrassment and barbarians who murder their own kin.



Originally posted by half_minded
Also, other recent news which shows that not all US soldiers are in Iraq fighting a goody-goody war.


But this is the worse extremities of human nature, not American, British or anyone else. Fact is these individuals are in the minority and do not reflect the entire Armed Forces personnel over there. Do Insurgents/Al Qaeda have rules of engagement and codes of practice? Do they believe in ethics and minimising brutality in conflict? I don't think so. Also all Coalition personnel found to be guilty of war crimes have actually been court marshalled or are in the process of. Can you say the same for Insurgents and Al Qaeda?


Originally posted by half_minded
The title is pretty self explanatory.


Self-explanatory indeed, shows your propensity for generalisation. So it justifies tarring all Coalition with the same brush? You can unequivocally state that this represents the enirety of Coalition forces in Iraq? That would be like saying all Iraqis are savages because of a minority of Insurgents. Nice generalisation there. Half-minded indeed.

On a sidenote, i'm sick of reading the same crap. About how the Coalition is purposely targetting civilians, how this is a grab for oil, how we're gradually losing liberties and turning into a police state, blah blah blah. Use your brain, think.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flyboy211
Whilst there is no evidence the US (or Coalition rather) is losing either.


The point is they are not winning and war is going nowhere except more bloodshed on both sides.


Originally posted by Flyboy211
So unless countries like Iran & Syria (perhaps others?) are supplying these idiots (which brings you to question why and undermines their position and makes them look worse than the Coalition), how will they last? The people will eventually get sick and tired of all this bollocks, because many of them are being killed in Mosques or busy Markets. Do you expect the insurgents or Al Qaeda for that matter to re-build Iraq's infrastructure?! Do they have the expertise or skill to do so? How about co-ordination and organisation? Come on please, you're deluding yourself if you think any hope lies with Insurgents and Al Qaeda.


Ok, first of all, nowhere in my OP did I say that hope lies with al Qaeda and the insurgents. The whole thread is to show why the Iraq was is a failure and should be condemned. But you somehow twist my words to try and show that I am supporting the insurgents and the killings.

Anyone who supports the war should not be talking about rebuilding Iraq. It was the war that destroyed Iraq in the first place. Even then if you insist then I do think that the Iraqi people can do a much better job of rebuilding than the US can because US has no intentions of doing so. They keep killing civilians everyday and keep fighting the insurgents that want them out. So why not leave the country and let them rebuild.


Originally posted by Flyboy211
When the Insurgents lay down their arms and try and HELP the Coalition and ordinary Iraqis re-build the country. How can blowing up Mosques, cars, market squares help restore anything? Every battle or firefight the Coalition and Insurgents/Al Qaeda fight, who usually comes out on top? Which btw isn't just down to advanced technology and 'gear', but superior training, discipline and support.


Why will the insurgents lay down their arms when the US army wont leave their land? Why is it so hard to admit that Iraq war was based on lies and is a complete failure. Just see the everyday news. US did not help by going into Iraq and they are not helping by staying there.


Originally posted by Flyboy211
For some reason the White House has taken the stance of not publishing casualty figures. On the face of it, it seems like they don't want to undermine public support/confidence in the ongoing operations within Iraq. However they also might simply not know. Although how do we know they're not already trying to estimate their own figures?


Ya exactly, don't want to lose public support because if the truth comes out then its obvious the american people will not support genocide.


Originally posted by Flyboy211
Even he is a little ambigious about the figures, stating that he wasn't sure where and from who he got them from.


He merely didnt remeber which side he got it from. But he remembered the number. And he is the head of operations in Iraq so obviously he has much bigger things going on in his mind and he will tend to forget such details. The very fact that he still mentions it is because he does want people to know and he does not care for being discredited.


Originally posted by Flyboy211
Conflicts nor life for that matter follow a 'mathematical projection'. You can't assume just because so and so deaths happened in these many months, and of the whole year, yet try and predict the EXACT same thing will happen or be multiplied next year. Obviously this is a bad year and things have gotten worse, however we do not know how things will pan out for the future.


When did I say it was EXACT figure? Did you even read before you started posting replies? I got an APPROXIMATE, obvioulsy the death could be less than or greater than that. Even, then its a very high number, that was the point.

Bad year???? Those not the words I would use to describe Iraq right now. I wish you were an Iraqi and you were the one facing war then I wonder if you would have called this genocide a 'bad year'.


Originally posted by Flyboy211
Look at the Troubles iin Northern Ireland, the peak of activity was the 70's, and to some degree the 80's, that went on for too long. Yet who came out better? Certainly not the IRA.


So you want this killing to go on till US finally manages to wipe out every Iraqi and lose thousands of soldiers????


Originally posted by Flyboy211
But you equally make it out that there is a deliberate policy by Coalition forces to indiscriminantely kill civilians. Come off it, who at least uses smart munitions, which at least aims to be as precise as possible whilst avoiding civilian deaths....


Precise ammunition is not the kind of ammo being used. Please do some research before you start posting in a hurry. Thousands of civilians would not be dying every month if US was using precise ammo.

After you get all that data, after you hear from you own officials, you somehow manage to justify this war. On top of that, you accuse me of siding with al qaeda and the insurgents.......good job.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flyboy211
....Insurgents and the like don't care, they'll detonate bombs purposely to maim and kill civilians, and 'point and shoot' wherever there's a moving target. They don't value the lives of civilians, indeed any life. You cannot leave a country to the mercy of such an unstable and volatile element.


And so do the soldiers. The thousands of dead civilians are proof of it. So whats the difference between the two?



Originally posted by Flyboy211
Whilst the original motives for invading are subject to investigation and seem questionable, we cannot dwell on that any further, it serves no purpose other than to avoid dealing with the issues at hand, which is to re-build Iraq and leave it in a condition in which it can fend for itself.


Original motives serve the most important purpose. The motive for war. Which was obviously not to help Iraq. Neither was Iraq a threat. Re-build after destroying it? No comments there.

As for the insurgents, if they thought US was helping them then why would they fight?
Obviously they dont want US in THEIR country and want US army out of THEIR country because apparantly they were happier with Saddam around. If these guys had it so bad then they would have fought Saddam but they are fighting the US.

Im sure they know better than anyone as to whats happening in THEIR country and who is on their side.


Originally posted by Flyboy211
Why do you think the Coalition is still there? They're trying to re-build infrastructure, provide electricity, clean water, basic sanitation and these idiots who apparently are 'fighting for freedom' are constantly sabotaging these efforts.


Did you read the article? Let me refresh your memory...


* Some universities and hospitals in Baghdad have lost up to 80 percent of their professional staff, Egeland said, and at least a third of Iraqi professionals are estimated to have left their country in recent years.


This is after US invaded. so you can see why I am having a difficult time understanding how anyone thinks US has helped Iraq so far if not making it worse.



Originally posted by Flyboy211
If i was Iraqi (depending on where i got my information and whether it is diluted and free from bias/restriction) then i would be angry everytime an Iraqi died by Coalition hands, or another part of the country is destroyed. However...i'd be more angry at the Insurgents and Al Qaeda or whoever else is helping them. Since they do not care for the Iraqi civilian by blowing up bombs in market squares, and especially in such holy places like the Mosques. They show no effort of trying to re-build Iraq and frankly don't have the capability or means to do so.


When you have a war going on in your streets and you have US dropping bombs all over than its kinda hard to just sit in your house and wait to be killed. Anyway, point is that US invaded and caused this situation disregarding the consequences and the human lives that would be lost on both sides.


Originally posted by Flyboy211
Lol you certainly have ignored history, rather conveniently. How do you think Saddam kept the excitable elements of Iraqi society quiet? He brutally subjugated Iraqis, gassed the Kurds, no one was ever allowed to speak out against him without facing serious consequences. Much of the country was suffering (UN sanctions did not help - however don't solely blame the US/UK), what was he doing? Building palaces of gold and erecting statues of himself; a self serving despotic ruler who was more infatuated with himself and saw himself as some sort of God, didn't exactly care about the plight of the common Iraqi.


When did the Iraqi people actually call out to US to help them be free. I am sure you can talk to any Iraqi currently and they will tell you that they were happier with Saddam rather than Bush killing them. They had lesser of two evils.


Originally posted by Flyboy211
At least they're trying to bring democracy to the people, so that they can hopefully eventually decide how to govern themselves and how their education/healthy system will be run.


Again, since my history is weak, please remind me when did Iraq call out to US and ask them to help them liberate and teach them how to live their life. Too bad most of them are dead now or trying to flee so its hard to get in touch with them and get their opinions on the war.



Originally posted by Flyboy211
No attacks? I kind of doubt that.


I said major attacks around the world, the kind that would make the NEWS. I haven't heard any so far, have you?


Originally posted by Flyboy211
Well i can't see how else you're going to label Insurgents/Al Qaeda when they're killing their own people? So every single Iraqi civilian is fighting to get rid of the Coalition are they?


I dont think every one can even if they wanted to. Not every Iraqi civilian knows how to shoot a gun or fight a war. Not everyone is brave enough to fight back. They know they would end up dying eventually so obvioulsy most of them just try to flee the country. Again, I find it very hard to understand why Iraqi's would support US for bringing war to their country.
How would you feel if war was going on in your streets? Actually dont answer that, I never get an honest answer to that.
More Iraq war supporters need to realize that war is not a joke. People who experience it can tell you that they were happier earlier under a dictator rather than under the mercy of US soldiers, insurgents and any crazy perosn with a gun.

I was in kuwait during Iraq invasion and I lived in tents and travelled back to my home country by roads. I know how its like.


Originally posted by Flyboy211

Tell me this, how will opposing warring tribes and individuals like Insurgents agree on anything if the Coalition left? You think they'd magically come together and suddenly peace would reign over Iraq, lol that's absurd and bordering on psychotic naiveness.


Im sure they would be happy that they are alive. Then some actual diplomatic country can help sort the mess that US created in the first place. In any case, as long as US is there, people are gonna keep dying.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flyboy211
Explain to me, if you will, how would the Insurgents and other extreme elements contribute to re-building Iraq? What they're suddenly experts in architecture, maintenance, plumbing, technicians etc? Do they have a plan on how to re-build Iraq?


Kuwait was destroyed after Iraq invasion and they build it back up. Iraqi people are not dumb people without education. Its funny how the US does not even ask the Iraqi people if they nneed help,the they just go there and destroy the country and then they talk about rebuilding it. Funny how US keeps covering up its mess by talking about rebuilding everything they destroyed themselves. Not to mention the lies this war was started on.


Originally posted by Flyboy211
If you leave these psychotic individuals to roam around Iraq unchecked, then you're only signing the country's death sentence, and despite what the civilians have suffered they deserve to be free from, death, harrassment and barbarians who murder their own kin.


Also letting US army stay there and cause more destruction is signing the country's death warrant. Civilians are dying by thousands every month so Im sure they would feel much better if Us left and they could stop dying and maybe live a little longer. You keep talking about their freedom and yet the US does not seem to care much for it seeing the everyday news.


Originally posted by Flyboy211
But this is the worse extremities of human nature, not American, British or anyone else. Fact is these individuals are in the minority and do not reflect the entire Armed Forces personnel over there. Do Insurgents/Al Qaeda have rules of engagement and codes of practice? Do they believe in ethics and minimising brutality in conflict? I don't think so. Also all Coalition personnel found to be guilty of war crimes have actually been court marshalled or are in the process of. Can you say the same for Insurgents and Al Qaeda?


So compare them to al qaeda and the insurgents. How many times did you see an insurgent rape a girl??? Comparison was not the point. Point is that, Iraqi civilian's fear is not limited to just death by bomb or bullet. Now they have to fear the US soldiers who could carry out such acts. I would hate to be in their shoes right now.


Originally posted by Flyboy211
Self-explanatory indeed, shows your propensity for generalisation. So it justifies tarring all Coalition with the same brush? You can unequivocally state that this represents the enirety of Coalition forces in Iraq? That would be like saying all Iraqis are savages because of a minority of Insurgents. Nice generalisation there. Half-minded indeed.


My title is 'Do you still support the Iraq war?". Now im a little confused but maybe you can help me out. How does that title mean that I am implying that all coalitions are savages? Atleast I seem to have half a mind but you.....well you know.

My whole post is to show that overall:

Iraq war is a failure.
US should not have invaded.
Iraq was not a threat.
US has done nothing to help the country (its very obvious).
People are dying everyday.
Situation is not getting any better.

Picture yourself an Iraqi's shoes for a second and decide for yourself. Would you like some country to invade you in the name of 'liberating you'?

What would you do if you were in such a situation? Would you hate Saddam or Bush?


The most disturbing part is that people still support the war and think that US did a noble thing by liberating Iraq.

Nothing on this planet can convince me that US is not a bigger threat to the world because I believe in numbers. US has caused destruction of more lives than all terrorists combined. Thanx to Bush. Hopefully the next president wont be like him.



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Before you start preaching

Let me ask you this my friend..

Have you forgotten how it felt that day
To see your homeland under fire
And her people blown away?
Have you forgotten when those towers fell?
We had neighbors still inside
Going through a living hell
And you say we shouldn't worry 'bout Bin Laden
HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN?

I've been there with the soldiers
Who've gone away to war
And you can bet that they remember
Just what they're fighting for

Have you forgotten all the people killed?
Yes, some went down like heroes in that Pennsylvania field
Have you forgotten about our Pentagon?
All the loved ones that we lost...


HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN????



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by raas32
HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN???


Even Kevin Tillman hasn't forgotten!!! that this "war" has nothing to do with 9/11!!!



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by half_minded
The point is they are not winning and war is going nowhere except more bloodshed on both sides.


No the real point is no one is winning, hence why it is a stalemate. If Coalition forces weren't being attacked so often, then perhaps they could put their fullest efforts into helping Iraqis re-build their lives and countries. The further the fighting continues the more atrocities will be committed. Before you try and turn that against me, think of who is attacking whom? If the Insurgents/Terrorists (external) stopped attacking the Coalition for 6 months, imagine all the construction and repair work that could be done? The Coalition are the ones who at present areable to finance plus provide technical expertise in re-construction, i cannot say the same for the Insurgents/Terrorists.


Originally posted by half_minded
Ok, first of all, nowhere in my OP did I say that hope lies with al Qaeda and the insurgents. The whole thread is to show why the Iraq was is a failure and should be condemned. But you somehow twist my words to try and show that I am supporting the insurgents and the killings.


Equally where the # is the condemnation against the Insurgents/Terrorists? You completely criticised the Coalition yet made no such effort against the Insurgents/Terrorists. Even though you did not directly and explicitly state "Al Qaeda/Insurgents would be better to take over" the fact you've been silent about their part, seems to indicate a silent condoning. There's definitely an extreme bias towards the Coalition, yet they are not alone in this and they are guilty of far less crimes than the Insurgents/Terrorists.


Originally posted by half_minded
Anyone who supports the war should not be talking about rebuilding Iraq. It was the war that destroyed Iraq in the first place. Even then if you insist then I do think that the Iraqi people can do a much better job of rebuilding than the US can because US has no intentions of doing so. They keep killing civilians everyday and keep fighting the insurgents that want them out. So why not leave the country and let them rebuild.


To clarify, i do not support the reasons for going to war, i thought it was weak and at present, seems to be unsubstantiated. However i do support the efforts of the Coalition to try and re-build Iraq, and most importantly, helping Iraqis to help themselves by trying to lay down the foundations and structure which enables this to happen.

I believe that even though the Coalition should never have gone in, in the first place. It is too late to change that since it has already happened, and there is nothing you can do, no matter how much you think we should condemn. Because of the consequent invasion and occupation, and the destruction that has been caused by the ensuing conflict. There is an obligation placed on the shoulders of the Coalition to do everything in their power, to help the Iraqis in every way possible by re-building as much as possible.

You say that the Iraqis at present could do a much better job? There isn't much for them to work with. The Coalition has its own engineers and experts who can help the Iraqis re-build most efficiently and quickly. Moreover by bringing in civilian contractors, engineers, technicians and other skilled experts, this should quicken the re-construction effort whilst speeding the time in which the Coalition can leave Iraq, since the hopeful outcome is that Iraq will be able to fully handle itself soon.


Originally posted by half_minded
Why will the insurgents lay down their arms when the US army wont leave their land? Why is it so hard to admit that Iraq war was based on lies and is a complete failure. Just see the everyday news. US did not help by going into Iraq and they are not helping by staying there.


Well not all the Insurgents/Terrorists are Iraqi nationals, however that is an issue i will discuss later. The Coalition has not left Iraq, and it has constantly been harrassed and attacked by the Insurgents/Terrorists. Clearly that isn't working, so why bother continuing. The only time the Coalition withdraws is when it is replaced by Iraqi Armed Forces. Which does happen to coincide with the Coalition's policy of gradual withdrawal as and when the Iraqi forces are able to take over and handle the situation themselves.

We can't be sure whether the war was based on deliberate/indeliberate misleading evidence. If it was deliberate, then the Coalition needs to answer for this and the individuals who are directly responsible for fabricating/exaggerating evidence should be brought to justice. In that case who knew of such false information. Was it only the intelligence agencies? Was it certain politicians (without knowledge of the US President/UK Prime Minister) who did so? Did the US President/UK Prime Minister know of this and still willingly took the Coalition to war, knowing the basis for doing so was false?

The Coalition may not have helped by invading in the first place - especially without full international support like the first (or technically second?) Gulf War of '91. However what matters now is what the Coalition can do before leaving Iraq. Should they not at least endeavour to leave Iraq in a much better condition than they found it? Wouldn't that be a much more ideal way to leave rather than simply leave it in a mess and let the Iraqis pick up the pieces. That is no way an invading (whether justified or not) forces should leave a country. If you feel it is ok for an invading force to simply leave straight away after invading and not bothering to help the local populace, then i question your sincerity concerning the plight of the Iraqi people.


Originally posted by half_minded
Ya exactly, don't want to lose public support because if the truth comes out then its obvious the american people will not support genocide.


How is it genocide?The Coalition is not actively trying to exterminate the Iraqi population, otherwise they would've taken a leaf out of Saddam's book and just gassed them, or even use a nuke. Unlike Iran, the Coalition doesn't believe in wiping other countries from the face of the Earth.

It's amusing that you haven't mentioned the likes of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who actively called for the extermination of the Muslim Shia population (60% of Iraq). That to me qualifies as genocide.



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by half_minded
He merely didnt remeber which side he got it from. But he remembered the number. And he is the head of operations in Iraq so obviously he has much bigger things going on in his mind and he will tend to forget such details. The very fact that he still mentions it is because he does want people to know and he does not care for being discredited.


Could be a case of Chinese whispers, seemed strange that he provides a figure yet isn't able to back it up. It seems to be guess work at best, without corroborative evidence or data. Someone may have just suggested that figure, since they had no clue what the real figure could be. Did he say it was a defiite accurate figure?

Another thing which is strange and confusing is what you said on other threads :-


Originally posted by half_minded
Also point to note that often the reports of death during war are very varied. People can never get a better picture of how many people died. Everyone throws out different numbers at the public.


Your Post

And...


Originally posted by half_minded
In case of war, we always get different numbers thrown around. We never know for sure how many people died. Infact, the number of people dead varies so much that its impossible to even get an approximate.

Who really knows how many US soldiers and Iraqi civilians died since the start of Iraq war?


Your Post 2

Surely those three statements by you don't add up right? (not out of context)


Originally posted by half_minded
When did I say it was EXACT figure? Did you even read before you started posting replies? I got an APPROXIMATE, obvioulsy the death could be less than or greater than that. Even, then its a very high number, that was the point.

Bad year???? Those not the words I would use to describe Iraq right now. I wish you were an Iraqi and you were the one facing war then I wonder if you would have called this genocide a 'bad year'.


Of course i read it you plonker, you gave an exact figure (which you stated was an estimate - it's an exact estimate), 108,000 over a period of three years, 36,000 per year and 3,000 per month. Yet you stated like it is a mathematic formula that 'X' amount have died in the past three years and that the same figure applies for every month lol.

Here's what you said :-


Originally posted by half_minded
More than 3,000 each month???? Multiply that by 12 and you get 36,000 each year. And its been 3 years roughly so multiply by 3 and you get your estimate. more than 108,000!!! And people still support this war??

keeping all theories aside, even if 9/11 was caused by terrorists, how does that justify killing of 108,000 people????


First thing's first, you mistakenly misinterpreted what some of the source said. It said the following :-

The United Nations has reported a spike in Iraqi deaths this year, saying more than 3,000 Iraqi civilians died each month in July and August alone.

It did not say 3,000 had died each month, it stated that number had died each month in July & August alone. You accuse me of not reading properly lol? Bravo
! At this rate you'll be doing my work for me.

I also don't need to be an Iraqi to sympathise and empathise with what they're going through, however i am aware of the objectives and feel it is worth fighting for. You also said you wish i was in that situation, why would you wish someone else whom you disagree with to be in such a situation?


Originally posted by half_minded
So you want this killing to go on till US finally manages to wipe out every Iraqi and lose thousands of soldiers????


Trying on the other shoe now are we? You twisted my words and construed a completely different meaning. You should have noted that i said "that went on for too long", implying that i wouldn't want the killing to go on. Also you completely missed the point i was trying to make. Which is throughout the Troubles of Northern Ireland, roughly over a 30 year period. With constant violence being committed by the IRA and also Unionist paramilitary organisations like the UDA, the IRA did not come out of it in a better situation, nor with their intended goals, which was a re-unified Ireland. Their violence got them no where, and now through a political party Sinn Féin, they've managed to open dialogue with opposing groups, have lasting peace in Northern Ireland and get things moving. You could say i was making an additional point that talking, and negotiating/dialogue might be the only resolution for all parties in Iraq.


Originally posted by half_minded
Precise ammunition is not the kind of ammo being used. Please do some research before you start posting in a hurry. Thousands of civilians would not be dying every month if US was using precise ammo.

After you get all that data, after you hear from you own officials, you somehow manage to justify this war. On top of that, you accuse me of siding with al qaeda and the insurgents.......good job.


Well i can't comment on every single engagement the Coalition finds itself in; including the type of weaponry/ammunition and the degree of use. However what i can state is that the Coalition do possess guided/smart weaponry. Whilst you may get some 'trigger happy' individuals, i believe on the whole the Coalition soldiers try their best not to kill civilians since that doesn't do anything for them nor does it achieve anything. Also the Insurgents/Terrorists take advantage of urban areas in order to suck in Coalition forces, and get them to cause as much collateral damage as possible. That to me doesn't say much about the kind of group if they are willing to use Iraqi civilians in such a manner. If the Coalition were able to engage them only in open desert i'm sure they would choose so, a) it makes it easier to kill opponents; b) no risk of civilian deaths....



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by half_minded
And so do the soldiers. The thousands of dead civilians are proof of it. So whats the difference between the two?


Not quite, the countless amount of deaths are largely due to Insurgent/Terrorist behaviour. Since they seem to detonate bombs in busy civilian districts.

Take this into consideration:-


Iraq: No life Without a home

Since the attack on the Al-Askari mosque in Samarra on 22 February, involuntary population movements in Iraq have been on the increase. The Iraqi Red Crescent assists displaced families, providing them with relief, food and tents. One of its staff shares his personal impressions of a visit in May to the Nahrawan camp for displaced people on the outskirts of Baghdad.


International Red Cross/Red Crescent

Here's the incident at hand :-


An explosion occurred at al-Askari Mosque in the Iraqi city of Samarra, on February 22, 2006, at about 6:55 a.m. local time (0355 UTC). The explosion at the mosque, one of the holiest sites in Shi'a Islam, is believed to have been caused by a bomb planted by members of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Although no injuries occurred in the blast, the mosque was severely damaged and the bombing resulted in violence over the following days. Over 100 dead bodies with bullet holes were found on February 23, and at least 165 people are thought to have been killed.[1]

The mosque is located some 100 km (60 miles) northwest of Baghdad, the capital.


....


Al-Qaeda in Iraq

In June 2006, it was reported that Iraqi commandos and troops had captured and seriously wounded Yousri Fakher Mohammed Ali, a Tunisian also known as Abu Qudama al-Tunesi, after he and 15 other foreign fighters stormed an Iraqi checkpoint 25 miles north of Baghdad, according to Iraqi National Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie. Abu Qudama confessed to taking part in the attack on al-Askari mosque in Samarra and gave a detailed account of how the attack took place. Al-Rubaie said Iraqi security forces have yet to capture the mastermind of the mosque attack, Haitham al-Badri, an Iraqi and leader of one of Al Qaeda in Iraq's cells. Al-Rubaie said al-Badri, Abu Qudama, four Saudi nationals and two other Iraqis stormed the mosque Feb. 21, rounded up the shrine's guards, members of Iraq's Facility Protection Service, and bound their hands. The group then spent the rest of the night rigging the mosque with bombs. At dawn the next day, they detonated the explosives, bringing down the dome


Al Askari Mosque Bombing

Now you ask what the difference is? Who's openly targetting civilians? Who cares little about civilian casualties when attacking the Coalition? The problem is that these Insurgents/Terrorists are combat 'savvy'. They purposely draw the Coalition into urban areas since they a)use the civilians somewhat as fodder/shields & b)try and get the Coalition to destroy as much Iraqi property as possible. Again the difference. Who's signed the Geneva Convention? Who has established Rules of Engagement and Code of Practice? Who has put its own personnel (a very small minority) on trial and consequent conviction of war crimes when found? (Refer to your CNN link)



Originally posted by half_minded
Original motives serve the most important purpose. The motive for war. Which was obviously not to help Iraq. Neither was Iraq a threat. Re-build after destroying it? No comments there.


At the present the most important 'purpose' is to re-build Iraqi lives, infrastructure and the country itself. Why do you obsess over the motives and legality of going to war? How is that going to help Iraqis NOW, who need electricty, clean water, sanitation, food, medicine. I don't agree with the invasion of Iraq, however it has happened and we must deal with it. So you believe that because the Coalition is responsible for much of Iraq's destruction, that they should not 'atone' as it were and not actually help the Iraqis re-build? Don't you think there is an obligation to 'clean up their own mess' as it were? If so, why stop them from doing that? What purpose would that serve other than chaos, carnage and death? Yet it's rather telling when you say "re-build after destroying it? No comments there", seems as if you're not interested in re-construction and that the Coalition should not bother repairing the damage its done.



Originally posted by half_minded
As for the insurgents, if they thought US was helping them then why would they fight?
Obviously they dont want US in THEIR country and want US army out of THEIR country because apparantly they were happier with Saddam around. If these guys had it so bad then they would have fought Saddam but they are fighting the US.

Im sure they know better than anyone as to whats happening in THEIR country and who is on their side.


Do you know who led the 'insurgency' in Iraq for the past 3 years? Probably not so i'll enlighten you, it was this man; Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Do you know he was actually Jordanian, what was he doing in another country? (other than the Coalition before you try that one).

What was he trying to achieve?....

I'll tell you :-


Abu Musab al-Zarqawi

Arabic: أبومصعب الزرقاوي‎, ’Abū Muṣ‘ab az-Zarqāwī) (October 20, 1966 – June 7, 2006) was the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, a militant group in Iraq.[1] Zarqawi took responsibility, on several audiotapes, for numerous acts of terrorism in Iraq and Jordan. These acts include suicide bombings, and the killing of soldiers, police officers, and civilians.

As an Islamist identified with the Salafi movement, Zarqawi opposed the presence of United States and Western military forces in the Islamic world and opposed the West's support for and the existence of Israel. In September 2005, he reportedly declared "all-out war" on Shia Muslims in Iraq[2] and is believed responsible for dispatching numerous Al-Qaeda suicide bombers throughout Iraq, especially to areas with large concentrations of Shia civilians. As the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq he is suspected of causing thousands of people's deaths – many, if not most of them, civilians.


Abu Musab al-Zarqawi



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 08:04 PM
link   
Cont....

....


Al-Zarqawi declares war on Iraqi Shia

Iraq's al-Qaida leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has declared "all-out war" on Shia Muslims in Iraq in response to a US-Iraqi offensive on the town of Tal Afar, according to an audio clip posted on the internet.


Al Jazeera Link

Now how is that exactly helpful towards Iraq and its people? How can you let a man who 's goal is to eradicate a certain section of Muslims in Iraq? Whether they are Kurds, Sunni or Shi'ite they are all Iraqis, yet it would've been ok to let someone like that loose in Iraq? Good thing he got killed in July, it's people like him who are impeding Coalition withdrawal and the development of Iraq.

It's also worth considering this :-

Alleged Abu Musab al-Zarqawi Document

Whilst you could argue the validity and source of the document, whether it a piece of fabricated propaganda, a plant by the US administration it still provides some insight into the machinations of the Insurgency at the time of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's tenure. Something worth considering

Look at Muqtada Al Sadr, he isn't perfect and has caused problems, especially with the Mehdi Army but at least he has joined the political process and has called for calm among his followers and the Mehdi Army. Although with the very recent trouble in Amari there has been a slight setback. However it isn't clear whether that is from a command/order from Al Sadr, or independently from Medhi Army commanders. It seems as if the Iraqi police have just about restored order.


Originally posted by half_minded
Did you read the article? Let me refresh your memory...


No need to be patronising, i read the article thank you very much. I just don't put as much emphasis on it as you do. True whilst the Coalition's invasion would invariably have driven many from Iraq (as if this doesn't happen in any other conflict - Kosovo for example), the fact that they haven't returned isn't down to the Coalition's presence, but simply because many parts of Iraq aren't safe enough to return to, even though civilians obviously continue to live there. Before you say that it's the Coalition's ongoing presence in Iraq, think of who's killing more civilians.

If the Insurgents/Terrorists stopped attacking everyone, and things actually settled down, i think you would find many of these professionals returning to Iraq. Insurgents/Terrorists are far too unstable to be relied upon to run the country. Especially when many groups would fight amongst each other.


Originally posted by half_minded
This is after US invaded. so you can see why I am having a difficult time understanding how anyone thinks US has helped Iraq so far if not making it worse.


Well if you look to past conflicts, such as Kosovo you will that the US indeed NATO/UN hasn't done a bad job in re-building Kosovo. Whilst it was a NATO campaign, the US did a lot of the missions and did its part in restoring Kosovo to some normality. You should also note that most Ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, are Muslim. Go back further than that to post WW2 Germany & Japan, and how America then helped those countries, even if it had bombed them to ruins. The way i see it is what the Coalition hopes to achieve in Iraq, the only reason these objectives aren't being implemented quickly is due to unecessary attacks by Insurgents/Terrorists.


Originally posted by half_minded
When you have a war going on in your streets and you have US dropping bombs all over than its kinda hard to just sit in your house and wait to be killed. Anyway, point is that US invaded and caused this situation disregarding the consequences and the human lives that would be lost on both sides.


I don't think i remember stating that people should sit on their hands while being shelled/bombed, but you carry on. I think it would be more accurate to say the Coalition did not anticipate nor prepare for long term occupation. In their eyes, perhaps misguidely they thought that it would simply be a case of briefly occupying Iraq whilst a government and armed forces are created, then leave as soon as the Iraqi administration and forces are set up. Poor planning and lack of foresight is what's dogged much of the problems, not to mention the Insurgency/Terrorism that has gone on.


Originally posted by half_minded
When did the Iraqi people actually call out to US to help them be free. I am sure you can talk to any Iraqi currently and they will tell you that they were happier with Saddam rather than Bush killing them. They had lesser of two evils.


Well let's get real here, it's not as if the Iraqi people had a free voice and were able to call for help. You seem to consistently neglect the way in which Saddam ruled, you refer to him as being the "lesser of two evils" yet you do not think of the acts he committed, the atrocities, the mass graves etc. I don't remember Saddam being democratically elected by the people. At least now Iraqis can vote for who they want, surely that should count for something?


Originally posted by half_minded
Again, since my history is weak, please remind me when did Iraq call out to US and ask them to help them liberate and teach them how to live their life. Too bad most of them are dead now or trying to flee so its hard to get in touch with them and get their opinions on the war.


Indeed your history is weak, you don't seem to have realised that the Iraqi people effectively had no voice under Saddam, it was suppressed by him at every turn. I don't think the Coalition is trying to teach them how to "live their life" as you put it. You're saying that Iraqis wanted Saddam in power? I'm sure if you had gone to Iraq when Saddam was there, every Iraqi would gladly show their support for him. Those with an Iraqi military officer pointing a gun at them that is



Originally posted by half_minded
I said major attacks around the world, the kind that would make the NEWS. I haven't heard any so far, have you?


My mistake, i took it to mean in Iraq rather than the outside world. However i'll first take this opportunity to respond your claim that there was no attack at all during Ramadan across the world....



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Cont....

....whilst that is correct, at least no terrorism committed around the world by Al Qaeda/Iraqi Insurgents (why would they?). There were still attacks occuring in Iraq. I'll refer you to this passage :-


HOLY MONTH

Caldwell said violence across the country had risen by at least 20 percent in the first three weeks of the holy month of Ramadan, compared to the previous three weeks.


You'd think Ramadan would have a calming effect, however completely the opposite seems to be the case. The article then continues to say the following :-


He said civilian casualty levels in Baghdad stabilised in October but added: "Operation Together Forward has made a difference in the focus areas but it has not met our overall expectations of sustaining a reduction in ... violence.

"We are working very closely with the government of Iraq to determine how to best to refocus our efforts," he said.

Lieutenant Colonel Christopher Garver said Casey ordered the review last week. "U.S. casualties are a grave concern but that is not driving the review," Garver told Reuters.


Now considering you quoted General William Caldwell as a reliable source for the casualty figure, do you now dispute what he said there as genuine? Or is it simply a case of mix and matching statistics and quotes when it suits you? It seems Major General Caldwell is at least candid about the situation in Iraq, and doesn't seem to peddle an agenda or bias.


Originally posted by half_minded
I dont think every one can even if they wanted to. Not every Iraqi civilian knows how to shoot a gun or fight a war. Not everyone is brave enough to fight back. They know they would end up dying eventually so obvioulsy most of them just try to flee the country.


I'm not exactly advocating the whole Iraqi populace answer the call to arms, nor am i denigrating te Iraqi, i am sure they're a resilient and decent people, like much of the world. We know of the exodus of Iraqis, as stated here :-


more than 300,000 have fled their homes in an internal exodus some fear is consolidating a sectarian partition of Iraq.


Iraqi Exodus


Originally posted by half_minded
Again, I find it very hard to understand why Iraqi's would support US for bringing war to their country.


Then you would need to ask yourself, why the US invaded and more importantly what their aims are. This is something not always clearly communicated to the civilians especially when distrust and possibly lies are spread by enemies of the Coalition, or by those who wish to destabilise the country.


Originally posted by half_minded
How would you feel if war was going on in your streets? Actually dont answer that, I never get an honest answer to that.


I will answer that, don't assume i won't because others haven't. I obviously wouldn't be happy if war was happening on the street and i would want it to end with the minimum loss of life and destruction to property. Of course this is hardly the case in any conflict. However if an occupying force was in my country, i wouldn't particularly want them there and i would expect them to fix the damage they've caused. If i knew that they were trying to re-build my country, then i wouldn't try and stop them. If they were brutally subjugating my country, then i may consider taking up arms if other alternatives had failed. However i don't believe this is what the Coalition is deliberately/undeliberately doing. If Iraqis believe this, then i would think this comes from a fear and distrust since the Coalition are occupiers and possibly depends on what i may have been fed from opposing factions. Remember, many Iraqis to my knowledge probably don't have access to electricity, so that would rule out things like tv and phone and internet, so access to news and information might still be limited. There's of course newspapers but that depends how much 'news' is reported on the outside world.


Originally posted by half_minded
More Iraq war supporters need to realize that war is not a joke. People who experience it can tell you that they were happier earlier under a dictator rather than under the mercy of US soldiers, insurgents and any crazy perosn with a gun.


Well as i understand it you're from Kuwait and experienced the first Gulf War firsthand. Although i'm not aware that Kuwait was ruled by a dictator then or now? How do you know if an Iraqi rathers a dictator than at least the possibility of freedom. Anyway at the moment Iraq has its own government, the Coalition is still there because of security and reconstruction needs. At least with a Coalition they are much less brutal than they Saddam. If anyone spoke out against Saddam they would be killed. Where as if they speak out against the Coalition, they are allowed to do so, and i'm sure they do, without any repercussions. I think personally it is too early to judge whether the invasion will turn out to be a 'success' or 'failure'. If the Coalition leaves Iraq in a state in which it is secure and can easily re-build itself and remain as a democracy, then i would classify it as a success. The reason i say democracy is not because it is the 'Western' way, but the fact it does allow for freedom of speech and expression. Where there is more choice in who you vote in to power. It isn't a perfect system, it can be littered with litigation and bureaucracy, still freedom is there.


Originally posted by half_minded
I was in kuwait during Iraq invasion and I lived in tents and travelled back to my home country by roads. I know how its like.


Well i'm not going to mention who invaded or where the 'blame' lies for that since i know you're pissed off about any occupying force. However i would ask whether the Coalition and Iraq were similar, who was more harsher on civilians and what the overall objectives of both forces were. How did you feel about NATO kicking Iraq out of Kuwait? Did they help re-building afterwards? How were the people treated by them?....



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Cont....


Originally posted by half_minded
Im sure they would be happy that they are alive. Then some actual diplomatic country can help sort the mess that US created in the first place. In any case, as long as US is there, people are gonna keep dying.


Well i don't think that would help, as it would simply be one occupying country replacing the others. Especially one that has knowledge of Iraq or how to interact with its people, which America has problems with yes but at least they would have a head start. It also is much more appropriate both morally and practically if the 'US' or Coalition rather, cleans up its own mess. Attacking civilians and Coalition forces the way it has been done, makes it more difficult and arduous to start re-constructing and repairing. Since logically, the more you sabotage efforts and delay someone from doing such work, the more they're going to be there, hence a longer stay.

You should note that the Coalition has gradually been pulling out of areas so that the Iraqi forces can take over. I think in some areas this has made things worse, probably because Insurgents/Terrorists think the Iraqis are weaker. I actually believe that if Iraq can survive this, its forces will emerge to be one of the best in dealing with security issues. Remember Iraq, specifically Baghdad was once the cradle of civilisation, perhaps it may once again emerge as a strong nation.


Originally posted by half_minded
Kuwait was destroyed after Iraq invasion and they build it back up. Iraqi people are not dumb people without education. Its funny how the US does not even ask the Iraqi people if they nneed help,the they just go there and destroy the country and then they talk about rebuilding it. Funny how US keeps covering up its mess by talking about rebuilding everything they destroyed themselves. Not to mention the lies this war was started on.


You mean Kuwaitis re-built Kuwait? I never claimed Iraqis were dumb, just that in the condition Iraq is now in. I doubt that they yet can fully take care of themselves as a country without some help, i.e Coalition. Not being condesending, just stating a fact, the infrastructure and perhaps technical expertise isn't quite there yet, although i'm confident that could be achieved within a reasonable amount of time. As you said, if many of the professionals have fled the country, then that means there's a likely decrease in technically skilled individuals.

Plus i think it is rather misleading to suggest that all of the destruction within Iraq can be exclusively blamed on the Coalition. It's the Insurgents/Terrorists that have showed more of a disregard for loss of life and destruction of property than the Coalition. Also how else are you going to try and fix your mess other than to try and clean it up? You've damned the Coalition for invading (understandable) yet you equally damn them for trying to re-build?


Originally posted by half_minded
Also letting US army stay there and cause more destruction is signing the country's death warrant. Civilians are dying by thousands every month so Im sure they would feel much better if Us left and they could stop dying and maybe live a little longer. You keep talking about their freedom and yet the US does not seem to care much for it seeing the everyday news.


Well if the Coalition didn't care for Iraqis freedom they wouldn't have enabled a democracy to be established. Now cynicism and distrust would let us think that they've installed a puppet government which will be an extended arm of the US. However governments come and go, they change, and i would like to think that the Iraqis will know who to choose and vote for them accordingly.

The Coalition should lend whatever aid it can to Iraqis, which is why it shot not leave the country yet. I also think it's false to say that the Coalition doesn't care for their freedoms, otherwise it would've just appointed another dictator like Saddam. The 'everyday news' as you put it does not reflect on how the Coalition as a whole is trying to help Iraqis. The few incidents you have mentioned are in a minority and should not reflect the entire Coalition forces stationed there.


Originally posted by half_minded
So compare them to al qaeda and the insurgents. How many times did you see an insurgent rape a girl??? Comparison was not the point. Point is that, Iraqi civilian's fear is not limited to just death by bomb or bullet. Now they have to fear the US soldiers who could carry out such acts. I would hate to be in their shoes right now.


Well unfortunately human nature isn't confine to nationalities, and if you're going to mention rape or assault then no one is better than anyone else. Sadly these things happen, even though they are in the minority. Which is something you have failed to pick up on. Let's refer to the story you mentioned :-


Four U.S. soldiers accused of raping and killing a 14-year-old girl and slaying her sister and their parents will face courts-martial on murder charges, military officials say.


....


The commander of the 101st Airborne Division has referred murder charges against the soldiers for the alleged crimes that occurred in Mahmoudiya, south of Baghdad, in March. Two of the soldiers could face the death penalty if convicted.


....


A soldier's suspicions

Also testifying at the August hearing was a soldier in the same platoon as the accused men, Pfc. Justin Watt, who said he began trying to find out what happened at Mahmoudiya after Yribe confided to him that Green had told Yribe about the rape and killings.

"I wanted to see if I could confirm my suspicions that there were more people involved," Watt said. "I believed there were American forces involved."


....


After piecing together the details about what happened, Watt said he reported his suspicions to a combat stress team. "If you have the power to make something right, you should do it," Watt said. "Investigation is not my job. But if something went down, something terrible like that, then it's my obligation to come forward."


....



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Accused has "anti-social personality disorder"

Green, who was discharged from the Army and returned to the United States in May because of an "anti-social personality disorder," is facing rape and murder charges in a civilian federal court. He is being held in a Kentucky jail.


....



Marines face murder charges in separate case

In Camp Pendleton, California, on Wednesday a U.S. Marine general ordered three Marines to stand trial on murder charges in the April killing of an Iraqi man outside Baghdad


....


They face possible life sentences if convicted of murder. Lt. Gen. James Mattis, the chief of Marine forces in the Middle East, ordered the courts-martial after reviewing each case, the Marines announced in a statement from the San Diego-area base.

No trial dates have been set.


I haven't taken those passages out of context, but rather taking the relevant points that support what i've been saying. That although there are disgusting elements within the Coalition, indeed anywhere, who commit such acts. They are in the minority and i don't believe you can label every Coalition member as rapists only because of the actions of a few. Also you'll notice that it states a soldier from their own unit was concerned and brought forward the necessary motions. Whilst Military Commanders cannot control individual behaviour, it can at least punish wrong doing accordingly. Two of them could face the death penalty, whilst other could serve life imprisonment. At least this ensures they would not be able to do this again.

As for the perception of Coalition personnel and the trust ordinary Iraqis have in them, i'm afraid this will obviously take a dent. The problem is this kind of thing will get spread around quickly and might give the impression that all Coalition personnel are like that, when it isn't the case. Any good work achieved by the Coalition will be overshadowed by this news. While it would be ignorant to assume that every Coalition soldier rapes young girls, sadly this might be the view of many because of the spread of fear and distrust, whether justified or not.


Originally posted by half_minded
My title is 'Do you still support the Iraq war?". Now im a little confused but maybe you can help me out. How does that title mean that I am implying that all coalitions are savages? Atleast I seem to have half a mind but you.....well you know.


I think you again misinterpreted what i said about the 'savages' comment. Let's see :-


Originally posted by Flyboy211
Self-explanatory indeed, shows your propensity for generalisation. So it justifies tarring all Coalition with the same brush? You can unequivocally state that this represents the enirety of Coalition forces in Iraq? That would be like saying all Iraqis are savages because of a minority of Insurgents. Nice generalisation there. Half-minded indeed.


I never accused you of stating/implying that Coalition forces are savages. I merely gave an example where the actions of a minority would falsely be attached to the majority. I used Iraqis as an example to contrast what you were saying/implying about the Coalition. Again you should take your own advice and read posts more carefully and thoroughly before jumping to such conclusions.


Originally posted by half_minded
My whole post is to show that overall:

Iraq war is a failure.


More accurate to say it hangs in the balance. Clearly the original official reasons for going to war were erroneous and based on false/exaggerated evidence. Since until WMDs or evidence of them being there are found, then there is no way that the US/UK claim of WMDs being used against neighbours within 45 minutes, therefore constituting as a threat can be substantiated or justified.

However if we are also referring to the ensuing struggle, then i disagree. Since it is too late to disengage, to leave Iraq now at this crucial point in time would be criminal. Is it imperative that the Coalition is allowed to aid in the complete re-forging of Iraq, whether you agreed/disagreed with the invasion. Primary concern has to be for the welfare of Iraq and its people.



Originally posted by half_minded
US should not have invaded.


Agreed, they should have stopped after Afghanistan. Since there they had full international support and had a much stronger and credible position within the international community.


Originally posted by half_minded
Iraq was not a threat.


That would probably be correct, however it had a propensity to be an aggressive expansionist. (Yes i know you'll say the US)


Originally posted by half_minded
US has done nothing to help the country (its very obvious).


Well for one, we do not get to hear about the positive achievements by the Coalition. Indeed as you've stated on another thread :-


Originally posted by half_minded
Only difference is that it never makes the news because it wasn't 'exciting' news.


Your Post 3

Of course that post regarded another matter, but it has relevance in the kind if news that is reported by the media.


Originally posted by half_minded
People are dying everyday.


We know that, too many.


Originally posted by half_minded
Situation is not getting any better.


Which is why the Coalition has to ensure that it gets better, by doing everything they can facilitate full autonomy for Iraq.


Originally posted by half_minded
Picture yourself an Iraqi's shoes for a second and decide for yourself. Would you like some country to invade you in the name of 'liberating you'?


Well that would depend on who was in power in my country and whether they are a totalitarian regime. In that case then probably yes. Whether i would be able to ask, i doubt it....

[edit on 20/10/06 by Flyboy211]

[edit on 20/10/06 by Flyboy211]



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Cont....


Originally posted by half_minded
What would you do if you were in such a situation? Would you hate Saddam or Bush?


Well obviously i would hate Saddam for what he did to the people. Gassing Kurds, building palaces for himself and statues while doing nothing for the people. Not letting people speak out freely. Committing other countless atrocities.

As for Bush, if i knew he intended to re-build Iraq and give the country its own government which could be representative of the people, then i'd give him a go. I'd obviously judge him on the progress if any being made, and of the Coalition's conduct. So i don't think hating him would come into it, unless he had badly let down Iraq and not delivered on what was promised.


Originally posted by half_minded
The most disturbing part is that people still support the war and think that US did a noble thing by liberating Iraq.


Well i support the re-construction efforts that are going on, and trying to establish a strong Iraq, what's wrong with that? I never labelled the invasion as 'noble'. I merely believe it is right to try and fix the country and leave it in a better shape than it was found in.


Originally posted by half_minded
Nothing on this planet can convince me that US is not a bigger threat to the world because I believe in numbers. US has caused destruction of more lives than all terrorists combined. Thanx to Bush. Hopefully the next president wont be like him.


Well luckily disaster has been averted with North Korea, and at least for now, it seems that the US will not provoke other nations or indeed invade them. I think it has its hands full with Iraq & Afghanistan. I too hope the next administration and president in the US won't be like Bush & Co.



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Half_Minded,

In your responses to my arguments in your 9/11 thread you tried to destroy my argument because I used the US media as a source. Saying they "Can't be trusted".

And here you are with CNN as your only source.

Hypocrit.

Flyboy has done a great job at responding to your argument and I would pitty you if you were to even attempt a response. I'm voting for flyboy for the Way Above award.


Edn

posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 08:31 PM
link   
you cant win a war if you don't know who your enemy is.

The Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan can not win because there not fighting a single force there fighting a ghost. why do you think the French resistance lasted through the entire war, no matter what the Germans did they could never actually stop them.



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edn
you cant win a war if you don't know who your enemy is.

The Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan can not win because there not fighting a single force there fighting a ghost. why do you think the French resistance lasted through the entire war, no matter what the Germans did they could never actually stop them.


Not really, look at Northern Ireland. The IRA whilst heavily infiltrated at one point did last quite a long time in its armed campaign. However it wasn't until UK PM Blair helped form the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 that he finally got the different opposing groups talking to each other. Now the IRA (PIRA) have decommissioned most of their weapons. The Unionists still haven't but the St Andrews talks have slowly showed progress.

Engagement and dialogue seems to be the way forward IMO.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join